Last week's editorial on marriage revealed two things: ignorance of what marriage is and ignorance of why the government is involved in marriage.
Marriage has a nature. Conservatives rightly assert that one of the central features of marriage is sexual complementarity. It is the "twoness" of the sexes that accounts for the requirement that only two people may marry.
Marriage revisionists also assert that marriage is composed of only two people. The problem is they can't provide any reason to defend the prohibition of plural unions. Once they claim that marriage is unrelated to sexual complementarity or reproductive potential, they jettison the only reason to ban plural unions.
But the ignorance of the editors doesn't end with their cluelessness about the nature of marriage. It extends to the reasons for government involvement in marriage. The government has no public interest in helping couples -- homosexual or heterosexual -- "proclaim to their friends and family that they are stable, responsible and deeply care for their better half."
The government does, however, have an interest in recognizing and regulating the type of relationship from which children naturally derive. The sexual union of one man and one woman is the type of union that produces children who have needs and rights, chief among which is to be raised whenever possible by their biological parents. Whether or not any particular couple chooses to or can procreate is irrelevant to the government, which is why the editors' suggestion regarding government-mandated fertility tests or drawer-dropping is so feckless.
Illinois Family Institute